After he took the bread and the 40 bucks, the robber then pulled out his iPhone and took a picture of the store clerk.

God wants you to starve and be unemployed. Satan is making you rob stores. He works in such wonderfully 'mysterious ways'.

Did he say Babylon ?

1) Isn't it compassionate liberals that want shopkeeps disarmed and paying heavy taxes for 'destroying Mother Earth'? Where's the compassion for the unemployed when Obama's tax hikes are making jobs vanish faster than a box of donuts at a police station?

2) The store owner's delusions of a higher power tricked him into turning the other cheek! Insidious!

3) How much have Dawkins and Hitchens given to charity--in any form--from their book deals?

>> ^quantumushroom:
1) Isn't it compassionate liberals that want shopkeeps disarmed and paying heavy taxes for 'destroying Mother Earth'? Where's the compassion for the unemployed when Obama's tax hikes are making jobs vanish faster than a box of donuts at a police station?
2) The store owner's delusions of a higher power tricked him into turning the other cheek! Insidious!
3) How much have Dawkins and Hitchens given to charity--in any form--from their book deals?


1) Isn't it moronic conservatives who started these economic troubles in the first place. Stop blaming Obama for Bush's idiocy.

2) I'm sure the intent of the title was to show that not all Muslims are terrorists and suicide bombers that need to be converted or killed, as many right wing Christians would have you believe. But altruism and compassion are not limited to the religious and are well explained by evolution.

3) Considering Richard Dawkins has his own charity, The Richard Dawkins Foundation, I would say quite a lot.

I don't think he would have given him the cash if he just asked

Skeeve, actually the foundations of the economic troubles were probably laid under Clinton and before. They repealed regulations put in place after the Great Depression.

Given the religiously themed title of this post, I have to say, hooray for humanism, and our ability to forgive and treat one another with compassion. and point out that this is NOT something we get from religion, but something religion steals from us. Had this nice man been a believing Christian, for example, he would probably attribute, wrongly, his act of kindness as something he picked up from the emphasis on forgiveness in the new testament. But even though Islamic scripture, to my knowledge, does not emphasize the "turn the other cheek" mentality like Jesus occasionally did, it is pretty safe to assume that this noble behavior by this man was not, as the robberer assumed, because he was religious, but rather despite it.

Steven Weinberg once said: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

With this video, and perhaps Daniel Dennetts excellent near-death article in mind, one could perhaps reverse the slogan, and simply say "With or without religion, for people to do good things - that takes Goodness."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Doesn't "inshallah" mean "God willing"? Would it be right to say "maybe he will steal again, God willing?" or maybe it's more like "if it's God's will" in either case it doesn't seem like something that God would be promoting.

Yes, insha'Allah means "god-willing". He says "maybe he wont steal again, insha'Allah" so he means that hopefully the guy wont steal again.

More of an example justifying my long-held that if God does exist then he is the most victimized entity of all time. The number of people that blame him for stuff is staggering.

if he is the creator of said 'stuff' who else is there to blaim?

I tend to blame the people that are actually DOING the bad stuff rather than making excuses for them by blaming 2ndary, tertiary, and ???-iary variables.

Can you tell me what RightWing Christins or LeftWing Pagans (the opposite of your title) have to do with this video? Are you saying only Muslims can do kind things? I know many Christians and many pagans that both can do kind things.

Wow, way to be biased.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

>> ^Skeeve:
Yes, insha'Allah means "god-willing". He says "maybe he wont steal again, insha'Allah" so he means that hopefully the guy wont steal again.


Oh, you're right - I just listened again, and I must have misheard the first time.

1) Isn't it moronic conservatives who started these economic troubles in the first place. Stop blaming Obama for Bush's idiocy.

No. It's liberal statists starting with FDR, assisted by corrupted Repubicans and culminating in the disastrous anti-liberty Obamarchy.

2) I'm sure the intent of the title was to show that not all Muslims are terrorists and suicide bombers that need to be converted or killed, as many right wing Christians would have you believe. But altruism and compassion are not limited to the religious and are well explained by evolution.

Not all Muslims need to be converted or killed, but how about liberals supporting killing the ones that do need to be killed (throat cutters, homicide bombers, etc.) and stop trying to pretend terrorists are citizens with legal rights.


3) Considering Richard Dawkins has his own charity, The Richard Dawkins Foundation, I would say quite a lot.

“Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” That's Dawkins, sounding rather dogmatic.

I'm not sure why, but I want to punch that douchebag anchor in the face. Something about him just rubs me the wrong way.

This is a friend of mine posting by proxy (I'm the proxy) since I haven't yet succeeded in convincing him to get his own account. Anyways...


>> ^quantumushroom:
“Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” That's Dawkins, sounding rather dogmatic.


You misquoted Dawkins. The full text looks like this:

"My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.

"One way to dramatize this point is to make a prediction. I predict that, if a form of life is ever discovered in another part of the universe, however outlandish and weirdly alien that form of life may be in detail, it will be found to resemble life on earth in one key respect: it will have evolved by some kind of Darwinian natural selection." - Richard Dawkins

You capitalized what was the middle of a sentence, cut part of the middle and stopped before he explained what he meant. What you did was the equivalent of this:

"'All Muslims need to be converted or killed, but how about liberals supporting killing the ones that do need to be killed and stop trying to pretend terrorists are citizens with legal rights.' That's quantumushroom, sounding rather racist."

^ QM learned his editing skills from Faux Newz.

I'm honestly shocked that Mr. Mohamed was invited by Fox news.... what a surprise!

>> ^EgyptianPrincess:
I'm honestly shocked that Mr. Mohamed was invited by Fox news.... what a surprise!


He used a gun in the story. At that point, they almost made him CEO.

Shep, you're a good shit.

You capitalized what was the middle of a sentence, cut part of the middle and stopped before he explained what he meant. What you did was the equivalent of this:

As an added bonus QM also changed the topic from "I bet Dawkins/Hitchens doesnt give to charity" to "Dawkins is dogmatic" after he was shown to be wrong. got any more unrelated, unproven, facts trash to throw at us godless liberals QM?